It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

After Less Than A Week Of GOP Control, Kentucky Passes 20-Week Abortion Ban

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

considering the cost of late term abortions, I highly doubt if it's because of the lack of finances!!
the website is biased, pro-life... the education and research arm of the Susan B. Anthony List.

of course, 20 weeks isn't considered late term really.



edit on 7-1-2017 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Published article to peruse at your leisure.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com...



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

ya, sure, clicked on one of the articles... they wanted $38 to allow me to read it...
no thanks!



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

sorry, try this
www.guttmacher.org...



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 12:04 AM
link   
20 weeks makes sense. It is a good compromise position on a tough issue. The required ultrasound seems punitive and I disagree with it, though I dont claim to have specific medical knowledge about it.



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 12:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: seasonal

Why are you trying to create shadow puppets to debate. Can't you debate the real issue with the 20 week ban and its implications without making up fake problems?



You mean like mentioning (thankfully) rare medical issues as if they happen every day?



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 12:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
The 20 week ban is a separate issue. It violates Roe V Wade. Vaginal ultrasounds are not required. There are much more complicated problems involved and dismissed by this ban.


Not really. Roe v Wade really only enforces the first trimester (3 months x 4 weeks / 1 Month = 12 weeks) as the no-questions-asked-okie-fine-murder-your-kid benchmark. Last I checked, 20 weeks is greater than 12.

Roe v Wade also recognizes that the States have compelling interest to regulate the abortion procedure.

Vaginal ultrasounds are the prefered method to examine the orientation of the fetus, which can be very important to the abortion procedure. You wouldn't want to endanger the mother's life unnecessarily when the technology exists to lower risk, would you?



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 07:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

This a terrible choice, and there is much controversy over why these late terms are done.

I wonder what % of Planned P balance sheet is from abortions and if this new law is going to increase profits because of the extra charges or is it going to cut back on abortions?



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 07:38 AM
link   
I think the 20 week is a good compromise. And with the other impediments, mostly financial, the abortion rate will decrease. Legal ones anyway. No worries. One day the lawmakers will find revenue for more kids to feed, educate, provide health care.



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 08:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: windword

the ultrasound is to check the 20 week mark not to add extra cost and abortions should be expensive.



No. You are wrong!


Wuchner said the purpose of the ultrasound is to assure that a woman considering an abortion is fully informed of what she is about to do, and that an ultrasound is necessary to assure "informed consent."

"The woman is given the option," Wuchner said. "She does not have to view the ultrasound, nor does she have to listen to the heartbeat."


The purpose of the ultrasound is to ensure that the woman understands what it is she's about to abort.

Forced and unnecessary.


"The woman is given the option," Wuchner said. "She does not have to view the ultrasound, nor does she have to listen to the heartbeat."

The bill calls for a fine of up to $100,000 the first time a physician does not comply with the law, with further offenses subject to a fine of up to $250,000, Wuchner said.


kyhealthnews.blogspot.com...



edit on 8-1-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 08:19 AM
link   
I don't get what the problem is.

You guys say we need to be more like Europe all the time.

20 weeks is still light years behind a lot of those countries who set their limits at 12 weeks.



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu



Roe v Wade also recognizes that the States have compelling interest to regulate the abortion procedure.


Roe V wade requires the state to represents the mother's choice pre-viability and allows the state to interfere in the interest of the life of fetus AFTER viability.

20 weeks is not viable in anyone's book, but a fetus suffering from a dire fetal anomaly may never gain "viability.

No fetal anomalies don't happen everyday, thankfully, and they are rare. That's why this law is so evil, because those are the cases that are being targeted by the 20 week ban.

Lawmakers know that women can't get a diagnosis until the fetus reaches at least 20 weeks. This law prevents a woman from choosing NOT to continue a dangerous pregnancy that may affect her own health, affect her and her family's future after being fully informed by her physician, through amnio tests and ultrasound, that her baby is in some kind of trouble.

This law requires that women actually wait until the distress of her sick fetus begins to affect her health and sends her into septic shock, kidney failure, heart failure, or whatever, instead of following her doctors advice to circumvent dire consequences.

This law targets women that wanted their pregnancies until they found out that their fetus isn't healthy, forcing them to give birth to a special needs child.


edit on 8-1-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 08:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: pirhanna
20 weeks makes sense. It is a good compromise position on a tough issue. The required ultrasound seems punitive and I disagree with it, though I dont claim to have specific medical knowledge about it.


Roe V Wade isn't broken and there is no need to compromise or chip away at established women's rights.



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: seasonal


Your study is skewed. From your own link:



A significant limiting factor of the study is the fact that the authors excluded women who sought abortion for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment, without commenting on how large of a cohort this represented.  Another significant limiting factor of the study is that only 44% of the eligible women participated (eligibility defined as women who obtained an abortion after 20 weeks gestation for reasons other than life endangerment or fetal anomaly), leaving room for significant selection bias


And this:


The actual number of surgical abortions performed after 20 weeks in the United States cannot be known due to a lack of national reporting. CDC projections, based largely on voluntary state reporting and abortion provider survey data from the Guttmacher Institute, a former affiliate of Planned Parenthood, estimate that roughly 1%, or over 15,000, abortions are performed after 20 weeks annually in the U.S. Thus, advocates of the women and unborn children affected by these procedures take great interest in mitigating the circumstances that drive women to seek late-term abortions.



Anti-abortion groups often skew data and present pseudo science to advance their narrative, that only slutty selfish women obtain abortions.




edit on 8-1-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 08:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
I don't get what the problem is.

You guys say we need to be more like Europe all the time.

20 weeks is still light years behind a lot of those countries who set their limits at 12 weeks.


It looks like most all the countries allow abortions past 12 weeks if the woman's life is in danger OR if the child has major fetal impairment.



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

With the gravity of the medical procedure that could be done, I think an ultra sound could save the babies life.

Now if it is in the rare case of horrible disease that is going to kill the baby or it will die a horrible painful death, than what is the point?



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: ketsuko
I don't get what the problem is.

You guys say we need to be more like Europe all the time.

20 weeks is still light years behind a lot of those countries who set their limits at 12 weeks.


It looks like most all the countries allow abortions past 12 weeks if the woman's life is in danger OR if the child has major fetal impairment.


But that's not the US. You guys want it for any reason whatsoever all the time.



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 09:28 AM
link   


And of course people want to call the baby a fetus


It's not a desire, it's science. First you have an egg, then an embryo, then a fetus, then a person. Conservatives want to pretend that as soon as someone's pregnant they magically have a person inside of them, but it's not true.



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: seasonal



With the gravity of the medical procedure that could be done, I think an ultra sound could save the babies life.


How could an ultrasound save the "babies'" life?

Doctors use ultrasounds at their discretion. This law has nothing to do with a medical aid and isn't written to assist the doctor determine anything. It's written to ensure "INFORMED CONSENT" from the woman seeking an abortion.

She is supposed to look at a picture of her fetus and listen to the heart beat while the doctor describes what she's seeing. Lawmakers don't believe that women are aware of what they're aborting, and feel the need to educate them. It's a blatant attempt to impose guilt and shame on a woman for seeking a legal medical procedure.



edit on 8-1-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Not all of us, this is a tough issue.

As you can see some are shocked and sickened that someone can dare have a differing view than theirs. And want the baby to be called different names. And want certain terms like and pro abortion to not be used. But can use anti abortion.

But luckily I am terrible at taking orders from forceful nonobjective people. So there is a good conversation.

This is a tough issue.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join